Elizabeth May announces that the Greens will not field a candidate in the Labrador by-election.

Elizabeth May announced today that the Green Party of Canada has decided not to field a candidate in the upcoming Labrador by-election and challenged the NDP to do the same…

The Federal Council of the Green Party of Canada has made the decision to step out ahead of nominating meetings of other parties to call for cooperation in Labrador. Peyton Barrett, Campaign Manager for George Barrett, the Green Candidate in the 2011 election, concurred, “At the grassroots level, we agree that cooperation can work in exceptional circumstances and when it is in the best interest of voters.”

This is what Ms. May suggested the Greens would do if a by-election had been called in Etobicoke Centre as a result of the dispute between Ted Opitz and Borys Wrzesnewskyj. As I noted at the time, there’s not really any precedent for such a move.

Via Twitter, Ms. May says the Labrador Greens wanted to do this and, as in Etobicoke Centre, points to questions about the integrity of the election as a reason for doing so. She also says she offered “cooperation” in the Calgary and Victoria by-elections.

The Greens took 1.3% of the vote in Labrador in 2011 (although, if those votes had gone to Liberal Todd Russell, he’d still be the MP right now).

Update 1:54pm. In a release from her Liberal leadership campaign, Joyce Murray says she approached Ms. May and proposed the idea.

“When news broke that a by-election was imminent following the resignation of Peter Penashue, the Harper Conservative MP forced to resign last week due to an election financing scandal, and in light of the 2011 results in Labrador and Stephen Harper’s attempt to stack the deck in Penashue’s favour, I called Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and asked her to consider having the Green Party EDA not run a candidate when the by-election is called. She immediately agreed to discuss the unique circumstances of this riding with the Green Party’s Executive Council and today we see the result: the Green Party has announced that it will not run a candidate in the Labrador by-election,” said MP Murray. “I am solidly on the record supporting local level electoral cooperation to elect progressives and defeat the Harper Conservatives. In this instance it is abundantly clear that the progressive candidate with the greatest ability to do that would be the Liberal candidate and not the Green Party candidate.”

The Green candidate in the Calgary Centre byelection finds lessons in the result.

Once party nominations have occurred and staff has been assigned, strategies and platforms established, signs and literature produced, it’s not just logistically difficult but fundamentally undemocratic to insist on co-operation. This is for the simple reason that every vote counts and every voter remains entitled to a free choice on the ballot. Once the race is on, there’s no putting the horses back into the barn.

What’s more, the presumption that a strong third horse in the race splits the vote is often ignorant of the facts at street level on the campaign trail. This was certainly the case in Calgary Centre, where my campaign saw a huge gain in momentum throughout the latter half of the campaign – not by eroding Liberal backing (which remained steady at around 30 per cent throughout the campaign), but by capturing substantial wedges of support from disaffected Conservatives, NDP voters looking for a better chance at backing a winner, and unaligned voters. My campaign did not split the vote in Calgary; we built our own coalition on the Green Party’s broad, moderate platform.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/chris-turner-on-calgary-centre-and-vote-splitting/feed/3Elizabeth May on the byelections and vote-splittinghttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/elizabeth-may-on-the-byelections-and-vote-splitting/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/elizabeth-may-on-the-byelections-and-vote-splitting/#commentsWed, 28 Nov 2012 16:55:42 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=320521Some of the Green party leader’s comments to reporters after QP yesterday.
Remember, this was a byelection. So there was no—I think people get panicked about vote splitting. Whether it …

Some of the Green party leader’s comments to reporters after QP yesterday.

Remember, this was a byelection. So there was no—I think people get panicked about vote splitting. Whether it is another Conservative, whether all the three ridings had gone Conservative, it wouldn’t have changed the dynamic in the House of Commons one bit. So in a general election, you have a different set of concerns and I think the Liberals, the NDP, need to start talking to each other. I’ve said that for some time. The Green Party at our convention actually had the members pass a resolution calling for me and our federal council to seek cooperation with the other parties so that in the 2015 election, we—I don’t know what form or shape that would take, but at least have discussions with a goal of after the 2015 election, getting rid of first past the post. The only reason we have all these panics about vote splitting and strategic [voting] is because we have one of the most bizarre voting systems that remains in any modern industrialized democracy. We’ve got a situation where the minority of voters can elect the majority of seats and where people worry needlessly. In the case of Victoria, we would have won in my view if the NDP hadn’t launched a last-minute fear campaign to tell supporters that if they voted green the Conservative would come up in the middle. Well the Conservative was stuck at 12% and wasn’t going to budge and it was very clear.

So that vote spitting argument works on all sides. It can motivate people to vote, not for what they want, but against what they’re afraid of and in a set of byelections, we went into them thinking that this was an opportunity certainly to make sure that people could see the Green Party was viable in different kinds of ridings across the country and certainly you know, the fact … that parties that are larger than us, that were in what were presumed to be safe seats, when they won by over 50% just 18 months ago and I refer to both the Calgary Conservatives and the Victoria New Democratics, they eked out victories by very narrow margins and I think that’s a sign that really the politics of Canada is different. The Green Party is a force electorally across the country…

Again, I can’t stress it enough. Byelections do not put in place a government in power. So there’s much less to fear and the fact that people play on this, you know, you’ve got to vote for one party over the other because you’ve got to be afraid of a Conservative additional seat: that’s not going to change the dynamic in the House of Commons. In byelections, I felt much less pressure, but as I said, our party has a policy. Our membership has passed a resolution calling on us to seek cooperation. I did attempt to see, cooperation with one of the major parties before these byelections. I’m not going to go into details, but they weren’t interested.

So you know, we’re just in a position when in byelections, you want to do the best you can to ensure that a different voice is heard on the federal landscape and I think we did remarkably well and I’m very pleased that—you know, people wrote off Victoria as a place where, because Denise Savoie had last been elected there with over 50% of the vote, there was the assumption that it was such a safe NDP seat, that at least nationally, nobody really bothered to cover the fact that our momentum was huge. If the election campaign had been one week longer, we would have taken Victoria. In the meantime, Calgary Centre, I think that … who would have imagined before these byelections that you would even be asking me about a strong showing by the Green Party in Calgary Centre.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/elizabeth-may-on-the-byelections-and-vote-splitting/feed/21‘Strategic voting gimmickerists’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/strategic-voting-gimmickerists/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/strategic-voting-gimmickerists/#commentsTue, 27 Nov 2012 14:36:19 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=319948Reviewing the by-elections, Alice Funke focuses on the Green vote.
But, if you look more closely at the right-hand side of the second graph above, and examine the parties’ historic …

But, if you look more closely at the right-hand side of the second graph above, and examine the parties’ historic vote-shares in the three by-election ridings, you are immediately struck by what became in many ways the most unexpected story of the evening. And this has big implications for all those trying to “unite the progressive vote” like LeadNow.ca, 1CalgaryCentre.com, and authors like Paul Adams of PowerTrap.ca … The Green Party cut into the Conservative vote in Western Canada. Substantially.

… What this suggests to me is that strategies aimed at causing parties to withdraw from certain ridings may have quite different outcomes than their proponents predict. And the one riding that was the most beset with endless clumsy tactical manipulation and cross-party griping about who was splitting whose vote, also wound up (perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not) being the riding with the lowest voter turnout.

Meanwhile, the Greens have clearly delivered a scare to the three other political parties in english Canada in this round of by-elections, and have finally understood the importance of a beach-head versus rising tide strategy to a small party, especially during by-elections. But their continued existence is also in greater jeopardy from the cuts to the public subsidy, as they are not raising nearly enough just yet to replace it and be able to run a substantial enough national campaign to keep beach-head seats in the fold. Also, they have yet to be able to sustain an eye-popping performance from one campaign into the next, as the history of London North Centre, ON, Central Nova, NS,Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, ON, and Guelph, ON amongst others amply demonstrates.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/strategic-voting-gimmickerists/feed/4Strategic campaigninghttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/strategic-campaigning/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/strategic-campaigning/#commentsWed, 11 May 2011 16:49:37 +0000Erica Alinihttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=191139Adam Radwanski explains Elizabeth May’s first-past-the-post conundrum.
Of all the arguments to examine how we elect our representatives, the plight of the Green Party probably isn’t at the top of …

Of all the arguments to examine how we elect our representatives, the plight of the Green Party probably isn’t at the top of the list. But just as it was beside the point to complain about Ms. May’s exclusion from this year’s debates, which was really just a reflection of her relevance within the current system, it’s equally beside the point to criticize her for making the best of what that system dealt her.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/strategic-campaigning/feed/4Where the votes werehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/where-the-votes-were/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/where-the-votes-were/#commentsMon, 09 May 2011 20:31:54 +0000Philippe Gohierhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=190982Working with the rebate threshold, Alice Funke tallies the number of ridings in which each party received at least 10% of the vote. Those totals are as follows, with changes…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/plusminus/feed/122The best speeches from the campaign trailhttp://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-best-speeches-from-the-campaign-trail/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-best-speeches-from-the-campaign-trail/#commentsFri, 29 Apr 2011 19:08:50 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=188574Each party leader has picked their favourite speech. Read the full text here.

In 35 days of campaigning across the country, the leaders have had innumerable photo-ops, declared myriad promises, and, naturally, uttered countless speeches. You can be forgiven for losing track. We got curious whether each party leader has his or her own favourite speech—one memorable utterance that stood out above the rest. They got back to us with these five transcripts. Click on a leader’s name to view the speech they picked.

Jack Layton, NDP

Hello my fellow New Democrats! Thank you for this warm welcome. I am very happy to be here with so many friends and terrific candidates!

Something is happening in Québec right now, there is a wind of change. A wind that blows along the St-Lawrence River. From Côte-Nord to Montréal, where I was born, to Gaspésie, to Quebec City, to Trois-Rivières. A wind of renewal coming from as far as James Bay, Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Outaouais. And blowing through Hudson, the city where I was raised. Wind from every corner in Quebec, which will breathe new life into politics.

In this election, Canadians have said loud and clear. That too many families can’t make ends meet. That too many seniors are living in poverty. That they have had enough of the same old debates.They deserve better.That is why we should dare to bring about change.

Change that is now necessary because Ottawa is running in circles. Because for too long, we have replaced scandals with different scandals, scandals that Quebecers could not tolerate anymore. Because some want to benefit from divisive politics. Because issues that matter to most Quebecers are yet to be settled.

You have voted to bring our troops home, but the mission in Afghanistan has been extended. You have voted for a green economy, but still, your money is used to subsidize big polluters. You have rejected scandals that tarnished politics, but again this week, we see the same story. Different leaders, same old scandals. For all these reasons, you believe it is now time for change.

Quebecers are ready for this change. Canadians are ready for this change. My friends, I am ready to bring this change to Ottawa, so that Quebecers have a strong voice in cabinet. In every corner of the province, my Quebec team is ready for this challenge.

Old debates and negative politics that we have seen since the beginning of this campaign are exactly what New Democrats stay away from.

Some have claimed that I was too polite to be a politician, as if it was a weakness for a party leader to listen what you have to say. My friends, I cannot promise to be less of a good guy, you know where I stand and you know I will fight for the priorities you hold dear. To defend families and seniors. To bring our troops home. To stop subsidizing big polluters and instead invest in clean energy. To give a voice to progressive Quebecers in cabinet.

I am committed to do things differently in Ottawa. I am committed to get results in the first 100 days as your Prime Minister. Not in four years. Now. Because people need help now. That’s my commitment to you. My friends, I am ready to be your Prime Minister, and I fully understand what this means.

A Prime Minister’s job is to make sure the government works for those who have elected him, and not for big corporations. A Prime Minister’s job is to bring people together. Build bridges between urban and rural areas and bring closer the different point of views which exist in this country. A Prime Minister must ensure Parliament represents the values you cherish.

Values like: Tolerance, compassion, pride in our differences, respect for democracy, cooperation. Those values are shared by all Canadians. My friends, we will work together to bring those values back to Parliament. No matter which party you supported in the past, we can put the old debates aside and work together to achieve real change.

We can prove that the cynics are wrong. That it is possible for Québec to have a to have a solid representation in Ottawa, not in the Opposition, but within government. Others will tell you that you have no choice but to vote for them. But that is, once again, old politics. You deserve better. You deserve change. And for that, we need to do more than block the Conservatives. We need to replace them. And it is not the first time for Quebecers to bring about major changes in our society. This isn’t the first time you’ve seen this. It means something is broken and we need to fix it.

It starts with a vote – your vote. And so, I’m calling on you – on May 2nd – to mark your ballot for change. Together, we can do this. We can show that: Here, our priority is job creation, the environment and world peace. Here, we dare to use words like “change” “hope” and “progress”. Here, we dare to look beyond old politics and have the audacity to ask for something better. Here, we dare to look cynicism directly in the eye, and have faith that the best has yet to come. And especially because there is so much to do.

The time has come for someone to take on those responsibilities. We are ready to take on this challenge! It can’t be done without you. Let’s work together. Let’s roll up our sleeves and start the work right now. Thank you!

Michael Ignatieff, Liberal party

Well, why are we here? We got an election. Why are we having an election? We’re having an election because Mr. Harper wouldn’t tell Parliament the truth about the costs of his jets, his jails and his corporate tax cuts. And because he wouldn’t tell Parliament the truth, Parliament said, you’re in contempt of Parliament. Basic breaking of the rules of democracy, that’s why we’re having an election.

You have to remember that. He broke one of basic rules of Canadian democracy in that elected officials that you voted, elected to parliament need to know what the jails will cost. How much will the fighter planes cost? And what will the tax give-aways to big corporations cost? He doesn’t want to tell us the truth, whereas we’re in an election. An election is not just a democratic moment; it’s an election on democracy. Yes.

Can you give power to a prime minister who shut parliament down twice? Can you give power to a Prime Minister who lacks respect for the basic rules of our democracy? The answer is no, there you go.

So now we got that out of the way. That’s good. But I wanna talk about the positive, hopeful, optimistic vision that we’ve got. We can talk about him all night. It’s kinda fun but after you’ve done it for a while, you wanna stop talking about stuff that makes you depressed. You wanna talk about something that cheers you up. And I’ve got something to cheer you up here. Now where is it, I usually have it here. Here it is. Here’s something to cheer you up – this is the Liberal platform. You read this, it’ll definitely cheer you up. This has, at the centre of it, what we call the Family Pack of policies. The thing about the Family Pack is that it offers a very specific message of hope for Northern Ontario and I wanna spell that out, just for a minute. Then we’re gonna get to the really fun part, which is you get to ask me any question you want. And they haven’t been pre-screened, they haven’t been controlled and I have no idea what you’re going to ask me. And some of it may be difficult and that’s my job.

Yeah, and I’ll tell you – people sometimes say that politics is show-business for ugly people.

They do, they say — Well I may be ugly, but this isn’t show business. This is important. This isn’t show business. This is democracy. I have to be here, I have to be here. It’s my job. I have to give you honest answers to your questions. That’s how it works. That, in case Mr. Harper doesn’t understand, is what democracy is all about.

Now, let me just talk just a second about the Family Pack and its relevance to Northern Ontario. One of the things that Northern Ontario has got so triumphantly right – so right—is its commitment to post-secondary education. I was just at Collège Boréal. I’ve been to Laurentian, Cambrian, Nipissing. All these great institutions, right? That is the fundamental key to the economic future of Northern Ontario, because if you can give your children a world-class education in Northern Ontario, then they’re going to stay in Northern Ontario and create great jobs and opportunities for other people in Northern Ontario. And this is where the Family Pack comes in, because we have the learning passport. It’s as simple as this: you have kids who want to go to college or university, but you think it’s too expensive. I’m looking at you son, I’m looking at you, see—it’s all about you. It’s pretty embarrassing, I know. It’ll be alright. There’s some over there. Yeah. This, folks, is what politics is all about. It’s all about their future.

So if their Moms and Dads open a Registered Education Savings Plan, a Liberal government will put four thousand dollars in the account for every single person. Every single student, so that when they get accepted at college and university, there will be four thousand dollars to help them pay the costs of their education. This is the largest investment in post-secondary education, one time investment, in the history of the country. And it’s on top of everything else we’re doing. This is new money. This is not Harper money. This is not recycled money. This is the real stuff, the real money. And if you come from a low-income family, it bumps up to six thousand dollars. This is very important because it all is based on a simple idea that everyone in Northern Ontario understands. This country runs on equality. It runs on equality of opportunity.

Between Anglophones and Francophones, between Northern Ontario and Southern Ontario. Everybody here is equal and the key to equality of opportunity is education and post-secondary education.

This is a commitment to the future of Northern Ontario’s children that we’re making. It’s absolutely crucial. That’s the other thing we got here, is early learning and childcare for every Canadian family that needs it. We’ve gotta give all of our kids a great start. Two other things – I’m not gonna talk all night, I wanna give you a chance to ask a question – two other things relevant to Northern Ontario. People tell me it gets cold up here in the winter, am I right?

It gets a little frosty up here. One of the things that is a real concern for families is rising energy costs. We have got an environmental reno-tax credit that allows every Canadian family that gets an environmental audit to claim back on their taxes the cost of making your house energy-efficient. And this is a permanent program, it’ll go on forever. And its purpose is to make sure that you can save on your energy bills. We calculate you can save five hundreds dollar a year on your energy bills, and get a lot of money back on your taxes if you do this homo-reno. And it’s permanent, and the other great thing about it is this creates job. It creates green jobs throughout Northern Ontario because everybody is gonna wanna get in the business of replacing your furnace, replacing your air conditioning, replacing your windows and doors and making you snug and tight for the winter. And we think this will have a big and positive effect on the family income of people right across Northern Ontario. So that’s another thing in the Family Pack. I think it’s a good idea.

Just two more things and then I’ll stop. When I was on the Liberal Express, I did seventy thousand kilometres on the bus. Joe was with me, Carole was with me. One of the things I noticed within 15 minutes of getting out of the Sault, and about 25 minutes of getting out of Sudbury, we lost cell phone and internet.

Right? Now this is a big deal. We don’t wanna have a two-speed Canada. We wanna have a one-speed Canada. A high-speed Canada. And that means north and south, east and west, rural and urban. How are you supposed to have a great economy in Northern Ontario, how are you supposed to run a business, how are you supposed to run a farm, how are you supposed to run a mine, how are you supposed to create jobs unless you’ve got world-class internet access? We’re the only party saying we’ll put five hundred million to get 100% high-speed access right across the country.

And the final thing I wanna talk about, because one of the things in Northern Ontario is a deep, historical experience of some of the bad things when big foreign companies come in – and they come in – and they dig this stuff out of the ground and then they seem to ship it all south and the jobs go too. And one of the things, we’ve all learned some painful lessons from that, and one of the responsibilities of the federal government is the Canada Investment Act. Industry Canada has that responsibility to make sure that all that inward investment creates net-benefit to Canada. And we’re all a little older and wiser as a result of some of the experiences that Northern Ontario has been through. And I want to pledge to you that we need to revise and review that whole process. We need to make a few things very clear. We need to make a few things very clear.

It has to be clear to everyone. If you come here to invest in Northern Ontario and all of Canada, there are rules. We’re in Canada, and you have to follow the rules, which means: protecting the environment, and respect for workers. Yes, respecting workers. Respecting workers’ pensions. That’s right, respecting workers’ pensions.

We have to have an investment review process that is transparent, public and accountable. You come here, you gotta respect Canadian labour law, you gotta respect Canadian pension law, you gotta respect Canadian environmental law. And if you make a promise to a community, I don’t care whether it’s Sudbury or Nanticoke or anywhere. If you make a promise to a community, it’s got to be public and you got to be held accountable to keep your promises to Canadians. And if you’re coming in here, if you’re coming in here to extract our resources, we’ve got to have some refining done here, folks. We gotta have some jobs here. You can’t take the stuff in and then just ship it out. We’ve gotta create value-added jobs here in Ontario. This is how it has to work. Otherwise, I’m sorry we’re not gonna use your money.
This is one of the richest places on Earth, Northern Ontario. And it often has that feeling that it’s not getting the benefit from all the wealth under the ground. And this is the key to it. We have to have a federal government that says, let’s make sure inward investment into our economy benefits the people of Northern Ontario.

So, in conclusion, my vision of what a Liberal is, is simple. It is based on one word, which I have used already: the word equality. To me, it’s a precious word, it’s a word that is dear to me. Equality between Anglophones and Francophones. Equality between people. Equality of rights. Equality of responsibilities. All families have to assume their responsibilities. That’s it, but there is also equality of opportunity, it’s important. Equality of opportunity. I don’t want a Canada where all of the hopes are focused on Toronto. Or all of the hope has gone from the north to the south. Or, from the rural areas to the urban centres.

The vision that I have of the country, and I think it’s the vision that animates the heart of every Liberal and every Canadian, whatever your party, is a deep commitment to equality. We gotta remember these basic things about us. We’re in an election here. One of the wonderful things about an election, it reminds us of that basic quality. I get one vote. Mr. Harper gets one vote. You get one vote. You get one vote. Nobody in this room is better than anybody else. Nobody in this room is more important than anyone else. We gotta remember that. And then everything we do in politics is to make and reinforce that basic equality – quality of rights, equality of responsibility, equality of opportunity. And most important of all, equality of hope. Equality of hope so that when you get up, when you’re born in Northern Ontario, you’ve got as much chance at the dream as any other place in the country. That’s what we’re talking about. That’s what we’re talking about. Now my wife is here and she’s quality control.

She makes sure I don’t get carried away. She makes sure I remember the most important part of this evening is the questions. And we’re gonna go to questions right now. And the thing about a question, I’d just like to make it clear – not a lot of people know this – a question is a short, interrogative statement that is followed by a question mark. Yeah, I mean, that’s what it is. And everybody gets one per-customer. And those people kinda piggy-backing two or three in, you know – no, just one per-customer and that would be great. And I’ll try to be short so we get as many as possible.

And, of course, we’ll be answering questions in the two official languages of our country. Bravo to Franco-Ontarians. Bravo to Anglophones. We’ll speak the two languages, right?

Stephen Harper, Conservative party

A choice such as you face when you come to a fork in the road, but at least with a fork in the road, either choice still leads forward. This election isn’t like that. This election is like deciding whether to go forward, or to make a U-turn. Canadians can choose to make a u-turn, to go back to the 1970s and the decades that followed, when Canada struggled with high government spending, high taxes and not enough jobs. A government involving Mr. Ignatieff’s Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois would take Canada back to the 1970s, making us all fall to the back of the pack.

Canadians have another option, and can instead choose to go forward. We can choose the Conservative low-tax plan for jobs and economic growth, so that Canada can emerge from the global recession faster and stronger than our peers among the leading industrialized countries. The way forward is to choose a strong, stable, national, majority, Conservative Government.

Our Conservative platform is realistic and accurately-costed, and it shows our plans right through a four-year term.Our plan is based on policies that have proven their worth and that are already working for Canadian families. It builds on the same low-tax, job-focussed orientation as Canada’s Economic Action Plan — a plan that is bringing Canada through the worst worldwide recession in 80 years at the head of the global class.

Our platform contains the same low-tax, job-focussed policies that were at the core of the federal Budget — the Next Phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan — a plan that we will implement right away if we have the honour of being re-elected.Our plan contains real, affordable benefits and tax reductions for Canadian families. In fact, being affordable and not requiring tax increases are two of the most important distinctions between our platform and the reckless election promises being made by Mr. Ignatieff’s Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois.

The first main theme of our platform is the economy.

Our Government has, from the beginning, pursued a low-tax plan for jobs and growth.This is the best way to encourage economic activity, to increase revenues for the government, and to provide affordable choices for Canadians. Our plan is based on training, trade, and low taxes. On training, we have important measures for older workers who need new skills, for students, and for immigrants who need to get foreign credentials recognized in Canada. No other party can match our record or our future plans for improved trade and access to export markets, or for keeping taxes down.

This will not change, because Conservatives understand that you cannot tax your way to prosperity and you cannot create jobs by raising taxes.

Our second theme, consistent through our time in office, is that Conservatives measure success by whether we construct a better future for our children and our grandchildren. We are proud to say that we have already made significant progress for families, and that we have done so through a low-tax approach. We have promoted choice in childcare and brought in the $1,200 per year child benefit, measures that have helped millions of people with the cost of raising their families.

In our platform, “Here for Canada,” we have laid out our vision for the next stage of a low-tax future for Canadian families because we are here for Canadian families.

Our third theme is responsible finance. Before the global recession we were paying down debt. With the global economic collapse, we joined with the other nations of the world with a coordinated plan of stimulus spending — our Economic Action Plan. That plan was one of the fastest and most successful plan in the world. We kept our deficit and debt levels well below most of our peer countries — in most cases far below.

Canadians understand that these were exceptional circumstances just as Canadians are clear that they do not want to go back to the days of permanent deficits. And we will not. Our deficit already fell by one quarter last year and it will fall by nearly another quarter this year. In our budget released before the campaign, we announced that we will achieve balance budgets by 2015, and we also discussed reviews to identify and eliminate government fat so that we can eliminate the deficit in 2014, a full year ahead of schedule.

Our fourth theme is also a longstanding Conservative priority — safer streets and neighbourhoods. Canadians believe that those who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules should be rewarded. They believe that government money should not be stolen or misused. And they believe that the rights of victims should count more than the rights of criminals.

Canadians want to walk down the street without looking over their shoulders. They want their children protected from predators, and while they support the rehabilitation of offenders, they believe that the punishment should fit the crime.

Canadians know that the combination of Mr. Ignatieff’s Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois has opposed us every step of the way.That is why our platform lays out a plan to bundle our outstanding criminal justice bills into comprehensive legislation and pass that legislation within the next Parliament’s first 100 days.

Fifth and finally, our Conservative Government will continue to stand on guard for Canada.We will continue to give our brave men and women in uniform the equipment they need and the respect they so richly deserve! We will defend our values and interests everywhere in the world, including in our great arctic frontier.

Five themes. Five sets of policies. Five ways forward for our country. Each one delivering real, tangible low-tax benefits to Canadians.

Our platform, “Here for Canada”, is a substantial document. It talks about the low-tax plan we have delivered, the low-tax plan we are delivering, and the low-tax plan we intend to deliver.It has dozens of pages of very specific and detailed pledges.

I urge all Canadians to take a close look at it, to look at it because this is our map for the road ahead, not a scrapbook of the journey we have taken.

Our opponents talk, sometimes openly, sometimes not so openly, about the taxes they will raise.But Canadians do not want to go back to the days of higher spending, higher taxes, double-digit unemployment, double-digit mortgages. Let us not go back to the days when federal policies divided Canadians against themselves, East against West, employer against employee, citizens against the military who serve them.

And let us especially not do it, at a time when the Bloc Québécois, a party that does not have the interests of Canada at heart, will be looking to exploit any incoherence or instability for its own purposes.

That must not be Canada’s future. We cannot go backwards in disunity, rather, we must go forward together!

As Conservatives, we do not run just to be the government. We are here for Canada to strengthen our country, a great country, and make it as strong and as free as it can be. A Canada proud of its past, standing tall in the world and confident of its future!

If that is your ambition for your country, you will choose a strong, stable, national, Conservative majority Government. And on May 2, I urge you for Canada’s sake, to do so!

Elizabeth May, Green party

I’m so grateful for so many of you rallying with us tonight. This is the first of our pro-democracy rallies across Canada and in this room it’s actually hard to try to do a head count but I’m watching more and more of you stream in and pack this hall and this is fantastic. Thank you for coming out tonight.

What is at stake here? What is at stake here is not about whether it’s good for the Green Party or bad for the Green Party to be excluded from the national televised leaders’ debate. What’s at stake here is what it means to Canadian citizens if a party supported by 1 in 10, and that EKOS poll today leaves us at – pretty much where we have been for the last year or so at around 10%. We’re still holding on to over 9% of the popular vote despite the fact that not only were we not invited to the leaders’ debates. In a lot of the national media we seem to have been not invited to the election.

I always watch with some interest where are the leaders today? That’s always an interesting thing, and I find that I seem not to exist. The entire national media contingent that follows Stephen Harper was — imagine this — five blocks from the Saanich-Gulf Islands Green Party office. They were assembled there in the magical mystery tour bubble contingent that is allowed to travel with Stephen Harper but not talk to him. They assembled at the Travel Lodge hotel in Sidney, British Columbia — as I mentioned, five blocks from my office — for the second time in a month that Stephen Harper has visited Saanich-Gulf Islands, to make another announcement. They didn’t know where they were going, as it was an undisclosed location, bundled up and delivered to a pre-prepared, pre-screened, and I’m sure the childrens’ Facebook pages had been checked. Then he announced something that’s been in our platform for four.. five…six years now? And he didn’t even actually announce that he would do it, he’d only do it maybe, promising if they do eliminate the deficit: income splitting.

So there we are. And I was astonished that the media coverage failed to mention, “Isn’t it interesting that the Prime Minister of Canada has twice in a month visited this Southern Vancouver riding… what could be the reason?”

The national media coverage failed to mention he was there in late February, and that he was there in late March. What would compel Stephen Harper to make two visits in a month to a riding held by one of his cabinet ministers?

I think it’s because they’re worried. I know it’s because they’re worried.

So, I listened with some interest to the radio coverage after Stephen Harper’s completely insulated, iron-clad contingent left our community. I listened when they said “and the opposition Leaders’ reaction to his visit was…” And then we heard from the people covering the liberal campaign, the people covering the NDP campaign, the people covering the Bloc campaign. But it’s where I’m running, and they didn’t mention that.

I’m not just looking at this in the sense that yes, it is egregious that they have decided to exclude the Greens. Who is the “they”? This is one of the things that is so hard: a faceless group of media executives made this decision behind closed doors.

Now, I’m not against the media. There’s a lot of you in the room. I love you dearly.

But what issues will never come up in the leader’s debate if we don’t get in? Here’s one of them. Our section on true democracy was prepared long ago, as we were not anticipating being excluded from the debates. We thought after 2008 the issue was settled and we would be included. But here’s one of the issues we probably won’t hear about from other politicians because although they may recognize it’s a problem, but they may think it’s too hot to handle.

What are we going to do about the increasing corporate control in Canadian journalism? We are committed to expanding the Broadcasting Act and the Competition Act so it can actually look at the problem that the first Canadian Royal Commission looked at back in the time of Keith Davy and the second Canadian Royal Commission looked at in 1981 under Tom Kent, where they found that the extent of media concentration of ownership was dangerous and unhealthy in a democracy. And that was before Conrad Black bought everything up.

This is a serious problem. If we want a healthy democracy we need a free, independent media that is unafraid of the politicians who run it.

Now, the other issues. I haven’t heard anything from the other parties on the situation in Afghanistan; we’re calling for a peaceful solution and yes, folks, we think we have a role in Afghanistan beyond this year, but only within UN peacekeeping and with a significant effort to clean up corruption in the Karzai government and to find ways to help the people of Afghanistan get out of poverty. That’s a goal: protect women’s rights and assist the people of Afghanistan get out of poverty

Beyond that, poverty is a significant issue and I’m not hearing about global poverty in this campaign. I haven’t heard one party mention the Millennium Development Goals. I haven’t heard one party say that we must restore Canadian funding to Planned Parenthood, to Match, and to Kairos — now!

Another issue I don’t think we’ll hear mentioned in the leaders’ debates if they keep me out is that what’s happening to Canadian democracy represents a dangerous departure from our traditions. There is no such creature in the Canadian constitution as the PMO. The Prime Minister’s Office under Lester B. Pearson was a handful of stenographers. It’s now hundreds and hundreds of people who spend every waking hour living on our tax dollars, deciding how to continue to advance the interests of the Conservative party over the interests of the Canadian people.

We have to look at the health of our democracy and we have to be a pro-democracy movement that liberates each and every one of the 308 Members of Parliament no matter what party they belong to. If they have no role, if they have no more role than to stand up and cheer when told, stand up and jeer when told, and sit down and shut up when told, then that’s not democracy, that’s an elected dictatorship. We have to rescue democracy from political parties.

It’s true. Petra Kelly, the founder of the German Greens, used to say the Green Party is the anti-party party. And I embrace that fully, because contamination and disease is running rampant through the House Of Commons, through our Parliament, through our government. It’s like the tentacles of partisan illness that seeks out and destroys every good idea, that wants to create division and dissention instead of trying to find common ground and cooperation, that looks at every public policy question and doesn’t think, “what’s the best thing we can do for the common good?”. That’s what parliamentarians are for.

Instead, they’re directed by the spin doctors and the somewhat sociopathic elite in every political party that run every campaign. They are obsessed with strategy, obsessed with winning, and not knowing what they’re winning it for, except more power for their own political elites.

Once you get through an election, the spin doctors should go home. Once you get through an election, people in the House of Commons should be capable of working together and saying, “Ok, we’ve got some issues here. We don’t all agree, but it’s a minority Parliament. Let’s aspire to be the best minority Parliament Canada’s ever seen.” And I think we all know the best minority government Canada’s ever seen was under Lester B. Pearson’s government with the cooperation of David Lewis that gave us our healthcare system, gave us our employment insurance, gave us our Canada Pension Plan, and invested in the future of the country.

So in our platform, we’re calling for a national program to engage Canadians, whether it’s a Royal Commission, a Commission of Inquiry, or a national conversation to address the democracy deficit because as GPO leader Mike Schreiner just said, if we don’t fix what’s growing like a cancer in Canadian democracy, the toxicity and the growth of constant partisanship, a non-stop election campaign — then even where consensus is sitting right in front of you and there’s a possibility of getting people to agree, it’s smashed to the floor lest it might become an obstacle in attacking the other person when the next election campaign rolls around.

I can’t stand it anymore, Canadians are sick of it, and when we have Green voices in the House of Commons, we will stop that kind for politics.

What other issues? Can you imagine in the national leaders’ debates that anyone other than me is going to bring up the need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into what happened in the streets of Toronto during the G20?

Can you imagine that anyone in the national leaders’ debate is going to bring up the erosion of women’s rights in this country over the last five years?

How is it that it goes unnoticed that the Harper government has removed from the mandate of Status of Women Canada the goal of achieving equality for women?

How can it be that nobody notices that when the 2009 budget was passed, a completely non-budgetary matter was stuffed in so no one could vote against it without causing an election — removing the right of women in the civil service to pay equity?

And how can it be that we would adopt the policies of George W. Bush to say that when we contribute to maternal health around the world, we won’t fund programs that give women in developing countries the right to legal and safe abortions.

It’s no wonder we lost our seat on the Security Council. How can we be the only country on Earth that allowed one of our own citizens to rot in Guantanamo Bay and be subjected to torture when he was a child soldier? How can we allow this?

How can we be the only country — the only country on Earth out of a hundred and seventy countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol — that decided to walk into the meetings and say a legally binding convention means nothing to us? We are disowning it, we’re disavowing it, and we will do nothing about it.

Canada once showed global leadership. Canada was and could be again and will be again, because by god Stephen Harper hasn’t yet changed our country although he’s dismantling our institutions. We are still the same country that values cooperation over division.

We are still the same country that reaches out to help each other in times of trouble. We are not a country where we are defined in our identity by “What’s in it for me?” We ask, “What’s in it for us?”

How do we together ensure what’s in it for my grandchildren? And these issues and these questions will never come up when four men gather again at podiums to perform the traditional, predictable ritual of partisan jab and pre-rehearsed efforts at the zinger line.

They don’t think on their feet. They could, but their handlers won’t let them. So we are going to see a very sad spectacle again.

And I just want to thank all those Canadians who have come to say and who have come to our aid to say it’s wrong not to include the Greens in the debate.
-30-

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-best-speeches-from-the-campaign-trail/feed/8From the magazinehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/from-the-magazine-7/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/from-the-magazine-7/#commentsThu, 21 Apr 2011 20:51:22 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=186392Here is the magazine piece on Michael Ignatieff’s current situation. Here is the math.
In order to do so, the Liberals first need their supporters to return. According to analysis …

Here is the magazine piece on Michael Ignatieff’s current situation. Here is the math.

In order to do so, the Liberals first need their supporters to return. According to analysis from Alice Funke ofpunditsguide.ca, the loss of Liberal seats in 2008 had less to do with other parties than with a drop in the Liberal vote from 2006 levels. The 800,000 voters that failed to materialize in 2008 are key to Liberal hopes in 2011. In tandem, the Green vote must decline—in 29 of the 31 ridings the Liberals failed to retain in 2008, Funke finds, Green support increased.

Even then, there is the small matter of the NDP and the current reality of political fragmentation. A plurality of Canadians—according to Innovative Research Group’s Canada 20/20 online panel for Maclean’s and Rogers Media—may agree with Ignatieff on student aid and a majority may agree with him on corporate taxes and pension reform, but while Harper is alone on one side of the argument, Ignatieff is competing for such voters. (For complete poll results see macleans.ca/electionpoll.) And NDP support has proved resilient. In the wake of Jack Layton’s performance in the leaders’ debates, the New Democrats have even risen in some polls.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/from-the-magazine-7/feed/4The Green platformhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-green-platform/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-green-platform/#commentsThu, 07 Apr 2011 20:32:13 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=182670The Green party has released its election platform—both short and long versions.
In this platform you will find a vision for a modern, smart economy that reduces the deficit, creates …

The Green party has released its election platform—both short and long versions.

In this platform you will find a vision for a modern, smart economy that reduces the deficit, creates new jobs that won’t be gone tomorrow, and doesn’t rely on generating pollution to generate energy. We see a future Canada with vibrant, well-educated and motivated citizens, living in healthy communities, eating safe and healthy food, and enjoying a life-giving, healthy natural world.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are set to present their platform tomorrow. The NDP will follow on Sunday.

The Green Party has promised to end large corporate subsidies and grant programs that go towards environmentally harmful industries, activities or practices. The Greens will also provide federal funding to local green business start-ups.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/establish-a-10-minimum-wage/feed/0Eliminate personal taxes on incomes of $20,000 or lesshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/eliminate-personal-taxes-on-incomes-of-20000-or-less/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/eliminate-personal-taxes-on-incomes-of-20000-or-less/#commentsWed, 06 Apr 2011 22:12:22 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=182254The Green Party has promised to eliminate personal income tax below the low income cut-off of $20,000.…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/eliminate-personal-taxes-on-incomes-of-20000-or-less/feed/0$450-million in funding for the CBC for three yearshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/stable-funding-for-the-cbc/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/stable-funding-for-the-cbc/#commentsTue, 05 Apr 2011 20:26:47 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=181844While campaigning in Victoria, BC, on April 4, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May promised the CBC $450 million in funding to be spread out over three years: $100 million in…

While campaigning in Victoria, BC, on April 4, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May promised the CBC $450 million in funding to be spread out over three years: $100 million in 2011-2012, $150 million in 2012-2013, and $200 million in 2013-2014.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/stable-funding-for-the-cbc/feed/0Increase provincial transfer payments to combat tuition increases, boost support for student loanshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/make-post-secondary-education-affordable-and-accessible/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/make-post-secondary-education-affordable-and-accessible/#commentsTue, 05 Apr 2011 20:03:36 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=181832While Campaigning in Victoria, BC, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May promised that if elected, her party would increase federal transfer payments to the provinces in order to combat tuition increases…

While Campaigning in Victoria, BC, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May promised that if elected, her party would increase federal transfer payments to the provinces in order to combat tuition increases and provide $900-million in bursaries to students in need over three years through the Canadian National Student Loan and Bursary Program. The Greens would also establish research grants with a specific focus on applied research to support new technologies in renewable energy, smart growth and energy conservation. Finally, the Green Party would establish a Youth Community and Environmental Service Corps that would provide federal minimum wage employment for 40,000 youth aged 18 to 25 for four years. At the end of each year-long program, participants would get a $4,000 tuition credit.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/make-post-secondary-education-affordable-and-accessible/feed/0Build high speed rail linkshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/build-high-speed-rail-links/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/build-high-speed-rail-links/#commentsTue, 05 Apr 2011 19:47:16 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=181816While campaigning in Sydney, BC, on March 29, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May promised to work with the other parties to build high-speed rail lines on the Windsor-Quebec and Calgary-Edmonton…

While campaigning in Sydney, BC, on March 29, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May promised to work with the other parties to build high-speed rail lines on the Windsor-Quebec and Calgary-Edmonton corridors and to the Halifax-Sydney and Regina-Saskatoon routes.

The NDP says the Conservatives and Liberals have conspired to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Evangelical leader Charles McVety says someone in the government told him that the Conservatives and NDP have a deal to pass a bill on human rights for the transgendered. And the Hill Times says that the Conservatives are in cahoots with the Bloc Quebecois to keep the government in power and fund a hockey arena in Quebec City.

Thus are the Greens, the only party not presently said to be cooperating in any manner with any other party, well-positioned to benefit at the next election from an anti-coalition vote.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-conservative-liberal-bloc-ndp-coalition/feed/18‘I’m mildly curious about my future’http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/im-mildly-curious-about-my-future/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/im-mildly-curious-about-my-future/#commentsWed, 09 Sep 2009 05:03:02 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=80313Elizabeth May takes aim at Saanich-Gulf Islands in what could be her last attempt to win a seat in the House

The phone rings 10 minutes past the allotted time and Elizabeth May apologizes. Seems she lost track of time after getting in late the night before after a weekend in Whitehorse. There she delivered a speech—to an overflow crowd, she says—and signed copies of her new book, Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy. She met with Yukon native leaders and took part in a fundraising dinner of Jamaican cuisine. And she held a press conference and conducted a workshop with young people on “water issues” and visited a community BBQ and invited locals to meet her for coffee at a bakery. “And I got to church,” she says.

And, in case you were wondering, carbon offsets were purchased—twice the necessary amount in fact—to counter any damage to the environment resulting from her travel.

She was calling from Vancouver, where there was more to do. After that she was to visit the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, where, perhaps ultimately, the tirelessly effusive leader of the Green party may yet meet her Waterloo. “I’m mildly curious about my future,” she says later, pressed to speculate about what may come whenever the next election is called. “My grandmother’s sister had this great expression, ‘Life has far more imagination than you or I.’ And I’m very confident that I have an interesting life. I have loads of interests. In or out of politics I have a lot of ways in which I think I can help my community and make a difference and I’ve done that since I was in my teens, I’ve been involved in trying to contribute something.”

For now though, she is in politics. And the goal remains the same as it has been for three years: winning a seat in Parliament.

In 2006, she ran in a by-election in London, Ontario, winning 9,845 votes, but finishing more than 3,000 behind Liberal Glen Pearson. Then she overreached—taking aim at Nova Scotia’s Central Nova riding, a Conservative stronghold mostly occupied by one member or another of the MacKay family since 1971. Stephane Dion, the sympathetic, if ill-fated, Liberal leader, agreed not to run a candidate against May. Exiled Liberal MP Blair Wilson momentarily made himself a Green, giving the party its first MP. And with Dion supporting her inclusion, May talked herself into the televised leaders debates and held her own. She talked of an upset in Central Nova and on election night, she won 12,620 votes. Unfortunately for her, Peter MacKay claimed more than 18,000.

Doubt and recrimination followed—up to and including discussion of her teenage daughter’s involvement in the campaign—but May stayed on and new emphasis was put on finding her a riding she could win. If the Green party was to move forward, it needed an MP. And if the Greens were to ever have an MP, the obvious candidate was May. All of which brings May now to Saanich-Gulf Islands, just north of Victoria. As was officially announced today, that’s where May will make her third, and possibly final, attempt to win a seat on the floor of the House of Commons—a cherished spot 20 feet down from the seat in the first row of the visitors’ gallery she occupies most afternoons in the spring and fall.

“This seems,” May said some weeks ago, “the logical decision.”

There are those who would quibble with May’s choice of adjective. Saanich-Gulf Islands has been held by the Reform, Canadian Alliance or Conservative parties since 1993. Gary Lunn, the minister of state for sport, has occupied the seat since 1997. Last fall, with the Liberals running well-known environmentalist Briony Penn and the NDP’s candidate having to withdraw after disclosure of a past incident of public nudity, Lunn was thought to be vulnerable, but still managed to win with nearly 28,000 votes. Penn finished second, just 2,500 votes behind. Another 6,700 votes went to Green candidate Andrew Lewis while the departed NDP candidate, whose name remained on the ballot, managed to win 3,700.

Penn is now supporting Renee Hetherington, another noted environmentalist, for the Liberal nomination. The NDP believes they have a couple of strong possibilities themselves. And with May inevitably boosting the Green vote, Lunn would seem once again set to benefit from division. “I think all of us would love to see Elizabeth in Parliament, just to shake the bloody place up because she’s excellent at what she does. But the numbers don’t add up. I know this riding,” says Penn, who knows and generally seems supportive of May. “If there’s two strong women candidates running on basically the same platform, Gary Lunn’s going to laugh all the way to Ottawa again. And it’s a tragedy.”

In the meantime, May will be challenged first for the Green nomination. In an online submission posted last weekend, Stuart Herzog, an environmental activist and former Green candidate on the provincial level, stepped forward to take issue with May’s mission. “Federal council has defined its goal for the coming election as to get just one Green MP elected, namely Elizabeth May, the current leader,” he wrote. “They believe that the Green Party won’t be effective until it can belly up to the negotiating table and become part of the anti-democratic, secret deal-making process. I believe that they are wrong.”

May is typically undaunted. Herzog’s challenge, she says, proves only the contrary—that the Greens are committed to fundamental democracy. And whatever the results of the last election, she argues, there is the reality now. “It’s unfortunate that it comes out with a focus on what the Greens see in the riding,” she says. “I think it’s the other way around. I think it’s what people in Saanich-Gulf Islands seek from their elected representative. And right now I see a big disconnect, and I hear a big disconnect from people in the riding, about their representative.”

Indeed, though pressed several times, May categorically rejects any attempt to apply back-of-the-napkin calculations to her candidacy. “It’s not an analytical crunching of numbers,” she says. “We’re looking at where is there a real appetite for change and a willingness to be a historical first, sending a Green to the House of Commons.”

Camille Labchuk, May’s former press secretary and now a member of the party’s federal council, is slightly less esoteric. Presented with the conventional wisdom that a riding such as Guelph, Ont., where Green support has improved over the last three votes, might make more sense, she undoes the notion with logic of her own. “In the last election, the Liberals ran the worst campaign ever in the history of the Liberal party, but Guelph still sent a rookie Liberal MP to parliament by a decent margin,” she notes. “Saanich, on the other hand, the Conservatives ran arguably their best campaign ever, and probably the best campaign they ever will run under Stephen Harper … yet Gary Lunn barely managed to hold on to his seat. There was a very strong anti-Lunn campaign, it just didn’t quite manage to crystallize enough around one candidate.” Both May and Labchuk arrive at approximately the same conclusion. “When you introduce someone like Elizabeth May into the equation, now you’ve got a rallying point,” says Labchuk.

All of which may actually come to pass. Or it may not. And therein lies what may be the final wager of May’s political career.

The party’s deputy leader, Adriane Carr, was recently quoted as saying that “for the first time ever, the Green party of Canada has written a campaign plan that is fully detailed.” May assures this was not an exaggeration—that the party was preoccupied with a set of by-elections last fall and wrong-footed when the Prime Minister launched a full election. And though she can no longer claim a sitting MP and nor count on the support of another party leader, she still believes she will be there when the leaders gather around a table and debate for the cameras.

On this, she takes comfort in recent polls. The Green party continues to win the theoretical allegiance of about 10 per cent of Canadians and, according to one recent survey, 41 per cent say they would like to see her win a seat in Parliament. That, she argues, demonstrates public interest, which justifies her presence.

Of course, when Canadians were last asked to confirm their support on paper, just seven per cent were so supportive of May’s side. And it is that conflict between perception and reality, hope and practicality, that continues to make May’s story so harrowing. All the more so now. The primary question—can she win?—remains. But it’s matched now with a more daunting follow-up—if not, what then? “Honestly, the thing that I fear most, and this is what I’ve said to Elizabeth, if she is declaring that this is the greenest riding in Canada … and she doesn’t win, what are we left with?” Penn says. “Her career is over. And I don’t want to see Elizabeth lost off the scene.”

May shoos away any talk of pressure. “I don’t even think about things like that,” she says. “The pressure I feel is around the Copenhagen summit coming up in December. The fact that we are running out of time to respond to the climate crisis. I don’t find politics particularly compelling as opposed to real life … My political fortunes are, honestly, in terms of my concerns, completely irrelevant.”

Discussion turns to other matters—how, for instance, the Greens would cut income taxes and employer contributions to employment insurance—then May is asked again to account for herself. For all the work she’s done, the effort put forth, and the possibility that it will all be for naught. May restates her thesis. “I think about the future quite a lot,” she says. “I think I think long term about the future more than other politicians, but unlike other politicians I don’t think the future is all about me.” Of course, she’s right. Except that it’s still her name on the ballot.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/im-mildly-curious-about-my-future/feed/24‘For the first time ever, the Green party of Canada has written a campaign plan that is fully detailed’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-the-first-time-ever-the-green-party-of-canada-has-written-a-campaign-plan-that-is-fully-detailed/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-the-first-time-ever-the-green-party-of-canada-has-written-a-campaign-plan-that-is-fully-detailed/#commentsThu, 20 Aug 2009 00:35:57 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=76851And on the off chance that’s enough for you to take Elizabeth May seriously now, there’s more.
To upgrade her standing as a federal candidate May has been addressing other …

And on the off chance that’s enough for you to take Elizabeth May seriously now, there’s more.

To upgrade her standing as a federal candidate May has been addressing other non-environmental issues by filing releases on her website, commenting on issues like Wafer-gate — when a New Brunswick newspaper alleged the prime minister slid a communion wafer into his pocket during a memorial service for a former governor general, in June.

Harper maintained that he ate the wafer, and the newspaper that ran the story has since retracted it and apologized, but not before May weighed in on the issue. While it might have been a matter of little interest to Green voters focused on environmental issues, Carr said it’s important that the party shows they aren’t a one-song band.

“Comments have to be made, and Elizabeth is great … she follows and tracks all the issues, and what’s really important is that people understand that the Green party is not a one-issue party, that we actually have comments and solutions to the full range of issues.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-the-first-time-ever-the-green-party-of-canada-has-written-a-campaign-plan-that-is-fully-detailed/feed/34Arrogant? Foolish? Dishonest?http://www.macleans.ca/general/arrogant-foolish-dishonest/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/arrogant-foolish-dishonest/#commentsTue, 18 Aug 2009 19:10:36 +0000Philippe Gohierhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=76399If I were to make a list of all the adjectives I could use to describe Canadian politicians and political parties, “self-aware” would rank pretty close to the bottom—down there…

If I were to make a list of all the adjectives I could use to describe Canadian politicians and political parties, “self-aware” would rank pretty close to the bottom—down there with “fun,” “witty,” “discerning” and “charismatic.” That’s what makes this poll so interesting.

Angus Reid Strategies asked 1,003 Canadians to pick six qualities out of a list of 17 that they would attach to each of the four major federalist parties and then broke down the results to compare how supporters view their own party to how Canadians view it. To the extent that supporters overwhelmingly tend towards positive qualities to describe their favourite party, the results aren’t shocking by any means. What is interesting, though, is just how sharp the divide can be between how supporters view their party compared to the way other Canadians do.

Below are the qualities for which there was the highest levels of agreement and disagreement between a party’s supporters and Canadians as a whole. (The numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of Canadians who attributed the quality to the party vs. the percentage of that party’s supporters who did the same.)

For what it’s worth, even if they’re less likely to describe themselves as such than Canadians as a whole, Conservatives appear to have embraced their inner arrogance. They also appear comfortable with the notion they’re not particularly compassionate or exciting. However, when it comes to convincing Canadians the party cares about the same issues they do, the Tories evidently have their work cut out for them.

Liberal supporters were the least likely of any political formation’s to pick out “honest” as an appropriate descriptor for their party. They were also the party most often described as “dishonest” by Canadians. The stench of Adscam is a persistent one.

So, Canadians view the Greens as a bunch of well-meaning flakes. Who knew?

Unfortunately, the poll doesn’t include Quebecers’ perceptions of the Bloc. Here’s what I think would come up if the poll had been taken in Quebec:

Agree: secretive, compassionate, exciting (that is, folks would agree they’re decidedly not exciting)Disagree: out of touch, down to earth, weak

I’m assuming here that the poll would show the Bloc is doomed to fight yet another existential battle in the next election campaign, even if it comes across as broadly competent.

How do you think the results would come out? Before adding your two cents in the comments, remember that the point of the exercise isn’t to crap all over the Bloc but to try and come up with their perceived strengths and weaknesses.

Here’s the list of words that are available: Down to earth, Arrogant, Open, Secretive, Efficient, Inefficient, Compassionate, Uncaring, Honest, Dishonest, Strong, Weak, Exciting, In touch, Out of touch, Intelligent, Foolish.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/arrogant-foolish-dishonest/feed/6UPDATED AGAIN: If Sun Tzu had access to a demon dialer …http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/if-sun-tzu-had-access-to-a-demon-dialer/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/if-sun-tzu-had-access-to-a-demon-dialer/#commentsTue, 14 Oct 2008 16:45:09 +0000kadyomalleyhttp://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=12691… this is totally the kind of thing he’d include in the second edition of Art of War. otherwise, I can’t imagine who… could possibly come up with an election

… this is totally the kind of thing he’d include in the second edition of Art of War. otherwise, I can’t imagine who could possibly come up with an election eve strategy as evilly brilliant – or brilliantly evil – as the one that apparently played out in the race underway in Saanich-Gulf Islands on Thanksgiving Monday – spotted by the force of nature that is National Newswatch, of course:

A number of residents in the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding received recorded telephone messages Monday, urging them to vote for NDP candidate Julian West – who left the race after controversy over a public-nudity incident 12 years ago.

Irene Wright, executive member of the NDP’s federal riding association for Saanich-Gulf Islands, said Monday night people started phoning her around 5 p.m. to say they had received an automated call encouraging them to vote for West in Tuesday’s election.

A woman’s voice in the recording said the call was endorsed by Bill Graham, president of the NDP Saanich-Gulf Islands riding association, and from the “Progressive Voters Association of Saanich-Gulf Islands.”

By using caller identification information, the call’s origin appeared to be the fax number at Graham’s address.

“It’s not coming from our fax machine,” said Graham. “Somebody is fraudulently using our name and our fax number to send out a misleading message.”

UPDATE: Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that nowhere in this story does it mention the fact that this is Gary Lunn’s riding?

AND EVEN UPPERDATED: The Tyee has more, including an on-the-record denial from Lunn’s campaign chair, Byng Giraud.

NOTE: Reposted from the comments, just to make it clear what I’m saying here: This has nothing to do with the use of a demon dialer – which, while obnoxious, is a perfectly legitimate campaign strategy. But this appears to be a deliberate attempt to frame the NDP for making calls supporting West’s candidacy, which the local NDP organizer – whose number apparently appeared on the calls -categorically denieshaving done.

Wasn’t that fun?
Congratulations to Canada’s political leaders on a job… done. Now, let’s talk about high-speed rail!

Memo to anyone being interviewed by the Vancouver Sun‘s Barbara Yaffe: if she agrees to start the interview over again, she really hasn’t. “CTV was on solid footing,” she writes, in deciding to air Dion’s confusion over what she calls “a simple question.” Why? Because “voters surely were entitled to make up their own minds” about what, if anything, the exchange meant. This strikes us as rather weak, especially if CTV has any other political do-overs in the can, but we certainly agree with her second point—which is that Harper’s reaction to the tape represented yet another needless and counterproductive “meany” moment.

“Harper’s move was perhaps cheap and dirty,” says Sun Media’s Greg Weston, “but such is the current five-week mudfest.” Thankfully for Canadians, he adds, “Dion’s faulty earfull [whatever that is] didn’t happen during a crucial tete-a-tete between prime minister and president at the White House.” Indeed, we hear both John McCain and Barack Obama rely heavily on hypothetical questions that transcend the space-time continuum.

In another piece, Weston counts “among the failings of Dion’s troubled leadership” his inability to draw Liberals disappointed with his victory back into the fold. But then again, voters seem to be “staying away in droves” from this election in general, if Weston’s single conversation with an unimpressed “30-something marketing assistant” is any indication—which it isn’t, really, but we’d hardly be surprised if record numbers of Canadians “voted with their butts and stayed home.”

In fact, “a lethargic electorate is the Conservatives’ best friend,” Don Martin argues in the Calgary Herald, since “their get-out-the-vote ground game is without equal” and the Liberal equivalent is in dire shape even “in important regions.” In other words, the Grits better hope their supporters are “motivated” enough to get to the polls without directions or rides from the Big Red Machine.

Did someone order a big bucket of crazy? Michael Coren, writing in the Toronto Sun, believes this election is, among other things, “about people who were raised in loving families and in turn raise their own well-adjusted kids as opposed to those who think family a place of evil and oppression and would rather watch a subtitled documentary than take their son to a hockey game.”

In the Ottawa Citizen, Andrew Cohen enumerates all the things that weren’t discussed seriously or at all during this uninspiring election campaign, from foreign policy to “the role and strength of the armed forces,” the “future of the oilsands, the urgency of alternative energy or the future scarcity of water,” high-speed rail, public broadcasting and, uh, obesity. For shame, Canada.

TheGlobe and Mail‘s Lawrence Martin proposes a novel theory of electoral morality: that it doesn’t matter how nasty your campaign gets as long as it’s in response to another nasty campaign. Thus, while “it’s correct to point out that the Grits have responded with their own cheap hits, the emphasis should be on the word ‘responded,’” he says. “The initiator since way back was Mr. Harper. There is no equivalence here.” His larger point, however, is to laud Jack Layton for running an uncommonly effective and “resonant” campaign. Unlike Dion and Harper, he says Layton “knew how to connect” with people. And since he doesn’t mention Layton’s various gusts of negativity, we’ll go ahead and assume it too was the good, reactionary kind.

The Citizen‘s Randal Denley recaps how an election that “promised to be one of the dullest in memory” turned into “a drama about people’s jobs, their life savings and their worries about the future”—and how an election that was superficially all about leadership suddenly became “a real-time leadership test” for the Prime Minister. He may have handled that test with skill, Denley concedes, but not with much sensitivity to Canadians’ purported desire to see their leaders “visibly doing something” in a crisis, “even if it isn’t actually useful.” (Busywork! Canadians demand more busywork!)

Maybe abandoning fixed election dates wasn’t such a great move for Harper in the first place, James Travers muses in the Toronto Star—not just because a majority now seems out of reach but because all the campaign rhetoric “moved the parties farther apart on the toughest challenges facing the nation—the economy, Afghanistan and the environment.” Maybe. But it seems to us that most of those differences either predate the election or have been hugely exaggerated for electoral purposes.

Whatever the outcome today, however Traversargues we’re in for a deeply unsatisfying outcome: a government whose self-destructive election tactics continue to raise “red flags about the risks of unfettered Harper control,” a 40th Parliament that’s just as precarious as the 39th, a weak opposition leader and a tanking economy. In other words, “38 days and some $300 million later,” we’ve arrived in the same “unsettled place” we started.

Lorne Gunter, writing in the Edmonton Journal, says “there would be some poetic justice” in an identical Tory minority, since “there was no need for this election” in the first place. Anything can happen today, he adds, there seems little reason to believe the Tories have counteracted the effects of the Wall Street crisis and will capture their majority. If so, he concludes, they will have “hoisted themselves on their own electoral petard.”

Despite all their external misfortune and internal blunders, the Herald‘s Don Martin says “a simple question of voting for the best leader for a lousy economy should’ve given the Conservatives advantage enough to give them the majority.” But alas, he posits that “self-defeat seems to be embedded in the DNA of Stephen Harper.” Casting arts funding as “a culture battle against snobbery and galas,” his “exuberant” backroom’s long leash and its crimes against “good taste,” and, last but not least, his “sneer” at Dion’s ill-fated CTV interview pissed it all away.

This, Dan Leger insightfullysuggests in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, “is precisely the weakness of leader-centric parties such as the Conservatives: When the boss trips, the party breaks an ankle.” Exactly, exactly, exactly. Exactly. We kept telling Mr. Harper to rustle himself up a legitimate political team, and he kept ignoring us, and now look at the pickle he’s in. Let that be a lesson to the rest of you politicians.

Also compounding the Tories’ problems is that they’ve always “been happy to be defined by those who oppose them rather than by those they win over,” Chantal Hébert argues in the Star. This helps explain why Harper elicits “negative emotions of a visceral strength not registered on the federal political scale since Brian Mulroney” even though he has none of Mulroney’s NAFTA or GST baggage. For many Canadians, she says disliking Harper is a “uniquely personal” affair—and for that, Harper has no one to blame but himself.

The Star‘s Haroon Siddiqui largely agrees, noting the various “dust-ups” with civil servants and bureaucrats from various departments that have given the Prime Minister his “secretive and authoritarian” image. But naturally, because everything in your average Siddiqui column comes back to a certain Texas oilman, our antipathy is also due to the fact “he has been a clone of George W Bush on Kyoto, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Israel, Hamas and Lebanon.”

The Globe‘s Jeffrey Simpson decries the Green, New Democrat, Liberal and Conservative parties’ economic platforms, in that order, as—respectively—”economic illiteracy of a high order,” “a recipe for capital flight, lower profits [and] job losses,” “more eyewash than substance” and a tragicomic rebuttal to the idea of their “being good stewards of the economy.”

Just as someone who has $10,000 but not $50,000 to put towards a down payment on a bungalow can find solace in bad times such as these, George Jonas writes in the National Post, so the Conservatives should be able to escape the natural fallout from the economic crisis—even though, ideologically, they are associated with the brand of “global capitalism that’s experiencing one of its periodic crises.” How, he doesn’t say—or we can’t decipher it, anyway—but it seems to have something to do with Richard III.

Rex Murphy, writing in the Globe, characterizes the campaign as one designed purely for the politicians and their attendant “partisans” and “ideologues.” Until this ghastly financial business began, he says “those who ‘hate’ Mr. Harper (and how that crowd smacks his last name), those who delight in the mauling of Mr. Dion … and those who scorn Jack Layton and Elizabeth May as unregenerate ideologues … had it all to themselves.” But now, all of a sudden, the questions have become: do the leaders “‘get’ the popular mood,” and what do the plan to do “about this mess”? We must say, this doesn’t achieve the lofty standards of insight we expect from Mr. Murphy.

The Vancouver Sun‘s Daphne Bramham alsoprovides little in the way of original thought on the campaign and Harper’s purported “empathy deficit”—a term we could not be more sick of hearing. Bramham is keeping herself interested by contemplating the unlikely event of a Liberal minority, which, assuming Dion didn’t abandon his Green Shift, could usher in “one of the largest tax shifts in Canadian history and one of the most significant realignments in our thinking about the economy.”

In a withering rebuke of the Tory campaign in the Montreal Gazette, L. Ian MacDonald attributes the Quebec flameout to Harper entrusting “the ADQ braintrust, if you can call them that,” with the task of winning them 30 seats. Instead they’ll probably end up with a “handful,” MacDonald predicts—all thanks to “obtuseness and stupidity.”

This just won’t do for “a leader whose biggest achievement has been bringing peace to relations with [Quebec], the West and the United States,” John Ivison writes in the Post. Indeed, he notes, it’s rather remarkable that Quebeckers now “doubt his sincerity” towards them considering “he spent the previous 30 months transferring wealth from the rest of Canada into Quebec.” Ah, but it’s like the Beatles said—money can’t buy you love.

It’s come to our attention that we’ve been misspelling Don Macpherson‘s name for… well, forever, with a capital P. We apologize unreservedly, and direct readers to his latest look at the anglophone’s unfortunate lot in Quebec’s political life. For example, he notes in the Gazette, a simple request from the Quebec Community Groups Network for the parties to comment on issues like anglophone Quebeckers’ underrepresentation in the federal civil service and “funding for cultural and heritage activities for English-speaking communities” has gone unanswered except by the Bloc, of all parties, and the Liberals, who “dashed off” a one-page, typo-filled missive. Not all anglos automatically vote Liberal, Macpherson notes. If common decency isn’t sufficient reason to pay them some mind, then how about trying to win some of their votes?

“The idea of appointing Quebeckers to cabinet just to win Quebeckers’ hearts, that’s finished,” a “Tory insider” tells the Globe‘s Konrad Yakabuski. Also finished, by the looks of it, is Quebec’s interest in sending Cabinet ministers to Ottawa. With the Bloc’s resurgence, Michael Fortier’s all-but-certain defeat and Maxime Bernier’s time in the wilderness surely not yet finished, Harper’s second Quebec caucus promises to be very “slim pickings.” What’s interesting, as Yakabuski notes, is that the same could be said of the Liberals if they somehow “accomplish the impossible” tonight.

The Star‘s Thomas Walkom speaks to various architects of the 1985 NDP-Liberal coalition in Ontario that saw David Peterson installed as premier, sans election, and asks what the chances are of a repeat performance at the federal level. Prognosis: doubtful, especially considering the Liberals would likely need the support of the Bloc to pull it off. As Walkom says, another Conservative minority would be just as likely to ” strike its own deal with the Bloc to stay alive, a deal focusing on decentralization and more power for Quebec.”

Recommitting to Afghanistan
David Frum returns from an “eight-day NATO-sponsored tour” of Afghanistan and, in the Post, advises against negotiating with the Taliban… for now. Much of the government’s enthusiasm for the prospect is a matter of domestic politics, he argues, in that Hamid Karzai needs relative peace in the Pashtun areas—where much of the insurgency, and his political support, is based—in order to ensure his reelection. That enthusiasm may wane in 2009, in other words, which is when “substantially more NATO forces” will arrive in the country and, for all we know, significantly impact the insurgents’ fortunes. In the meantime, Frum suggests the U.S. and NATO make a final attempt to “talk more firmly and clearly” to Pakistan, and to make ending that country’s support for the Taliban their first priority.

Scott Taylor, writing in the Chronicle-Herald, provides a glimpse into the shortsighted thinking he says has always hampered the Afghanistan mission. Concluding that the Afghan army and police force were “a demoralized, inefficient, unreliable monster,” we decided to jack up the base salaries. The result: loads of teachers quit their jobs and enlisted, which from an overall nation-building standpoint amounts to “eating [your] seed potatoes.” The Americans were “absolutely gobsmacked” to learn of a new Canadian-German co-venture to train border guards over a period of two years, Taylor notes, but “nowhere in the Western world would we even contemplate putting on the streets an illiterate policeman with six weeks’ training, a Kalashnikov assault rifle and a badge.”

Duly noted
The Globe‘s Christie Blatchford suggests the first people to make use of Ontario’s new apology law should be “Premier Dalton McGuinty and the present and former commissioners of the Ontario Provincial Police… , and all of those who have so betrayed Dave and his family”—Dave and his family being the Browns of Caledonia, Ont., who “have the extraordinary misfortune of living in a house … immediately next to the now-notorious ex-housing development called Douglas Creek Estates,” site of years of native protests and apparently considered a no-go zone for the provincial fuzz. The Browns, says Blatchford, have become “the symbol of our country’s failure to come to terms with aboriginal people.”

The Vancouver Sun‘s Barbara Yaffe speaks to American political scientist Stephen Blank about the necessity of increased North American integration for the economic and environmental future of Mexico, Canada and the United States. He suggests the Security and Prosperity Partnership “be allowed to die, because it has become such a focus for alarmists,” and that “North American mayors should lead the charge to promote continental co-ordination” because “they’re best positioned to sell cooperative ventures”—and, we can only assume, because even alarmists trust mayors implicitly.

Stéphane Dion was jetting across the country, chasing the elusive (and sizable) undecided vote. Stephen Harper was in Prince Edward Island, among many other places, looking to be exactly the same type of Prime Minister he was before the campaign. Gilles Duceppe was sashaying around Quebec, presumably wondering where it all went so right. Jack Layton was hamming it up on Much Music and getting into a terrific little dustup with Don Newman when the latter had the gall to suggest Jack wasn’t going to be Prime Minister.

Elizabeth May? Naturally, she was in a church basement, serving pie.

May stuck to her base in New Glasgow this evening, where she is running against incumbent Peter Mackay, choosing instead to host some 200 people for Thanksgiving dinner at the New Trinity United Church. There was a band. There was a bucket of turkey stuffing, and a trough of cranberry sauce. And there was May, all hornrims and bobble earrings and gosh-darn charm, dancing around the room in her ubiquitous brown pantsuit like it was the best day in her life. Tomorrow is when it all goes down: she’s going to wave at traffic in the morning, get her vote out in the afternoon, beat Peter Mackay at night, then shimmy, all carbon neutral-like, into the big, boring bastion of Ottawa and change the world. If you’re sitting beside her, as I was a couple of hours ago, she’s impossible not to believe.

She spent the day fending off criticism from her own party that she’d engaged in a ‘Anyone-but-Stephen’ strategic voting scheme. Bah, she said. Scandal for the sake of scandal. And besides, Jack Layton’s a hypocrite. “I’ve voted strategically in the past,” she admits. “Look, there are nine to 10 ridings where we can get seats. Then there are a whole bunch of ridings where people should vote for us because it’ll help the party financially [since 2004, parties receiving over two percent of the votes cast get $1.75 per vote].

“Then there are a handful of ridings where three federal parties split the progressive vote, and I’m not going to be so partisan as to tell people to vote Green no matter what. It’s dishonest to say voters should vote Green no matter what because the best thing in terms of the environment is for Stephen Harper not to be elected. At the same time I wouldn’t disown my own party because my candidates are great. ”

I ask her why other parties don’t seem quite so pragmatic. “Simple slogans are easier to understand, but they are often wrong.”

What, pray tell, do you mean by simple slogans?

“‘Vote NDP, because I’m going to become Prime Minister.”

Oof.

Green Party internal polling has May within the margin of error with Peter Mackay. I have my doubts about her chances, but I’m glad I’ll be around for the potential upset.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/confessions-of-a-would-be-giant-killer/feed/7UPDATED – Still more on the candidate selection process – Apparently, it really is an honour just to be nominated.http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/still-more-on-the-candidate-selection-process-apparently-it-really-is-an-honour-just-to-be-nominated/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/still-more-on-the-candidate-selection-process-apparently-it-really-is-an-honour-just-to-be-nominated/#commentsMon, 18 Aug 2008 16:14:49 +0000kadyomalleyhttp://macleans.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/still-more-on-the-candidate-selection-process-apparently-it-really-is-an-honour-just-to-be-nominated/Yesterday, ITQ posted the new guidelines for potential Conservative candidates, which have become considerably more onerous since the last election.
In what a cynical observer might suggest is an attempt…

Yesterday, ITQ posted the new guidelines for potential Conservative candidates, which have become considerably more onerous since the last election.

In what a cynical observer might suggest is an attempt to tighten any potential future legal challenge to the party’s now notorious in-and-out scheme – which it maintains is entirely legitimate under existing election law – Tory hopefuls are now required to agree, in advance, to any “reasonable financial arrangement” with the party to provide “campaign services” before they will even be permitted to run for the nomination. They also aren’t allowed to talk about it before, during or after the fact, since they also have to sign a non-disclosure agreement that covers the entire candidate selection process.

In the subsequent comment thread, a reader asked if we were planning to do the same thing for the other parties, which had already struck ITQ as an excellent idea for a follow-up post.

After all, one of the most commonly-heard Conservative talking points in response to the in-and-out controversy is that other parties do it too – so why not check to see if those other parties also want potential candidates to agree to future financial arrangements with the national party?

Short answer: No, they don’t, as it turns out.

Here’s a summary of what we’ve been able to find out so far:

The Liberal Party makes potential candidates fill out a lengthy personal information form, which includes the usual questions about background – criminal record, bankruptcies, ongoing legal action, employment and education history.

Other requirements:

The questionnaire asks whether the applicant has ever been “the subject of any legal proceeding, inquiry or investigation instituted or undertaken by an agency of government or by a regulatory body in Canada or elsewhere” – no Gomery alumni need apply? It doesn’t say whether this is a deal-breaker.

Applicants must also disclose whether they are a “a party, witness or otherwise, in any litigation before a court of law or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, which, if publicized before or during an election campaign, could adversely affect your campaign or the campaign of the Liberal Party of Canada or cause embarrassment to the Party of [sic] its Leader?” It doesn’t give examples, however; apparently, the potential for “embarrassment” is left up to the putative nominee to determine.

If any potentially controversial candidates do manage to slip through the foregoing, however, there is an open-ended “full disclosure” question as well, which presumably would give the party a legal out to turf a candidate at any point in the electoral process: “Are you aware of any other material fact not otherwise disclosed in this Form that, if publicly known, could cause your electoral chances or the electoral chances of the Liberal Party of Canada to be materially worsened, could hinder the performance of your public duties as a Member of Parliament or could be used by your opponents against you or the Liberal Party of Canada?”

Finally, unlike the Conservative Party, candidates are not required to sign a non-disclosure agreement on the nomination process, and there is no provision compelling them to agree, in advance, to any “reasonable” financial arrangement with the party.

The New Democratic Party has not put its nomination forms online as yet, but a source within the party told us that there are no provisions for a non-disclosure agreement, or future financial arrangements with the party for campaign services.

Other requirements

Potential candidates agree that, if the campaign gets over 10% of the vote and qualifies for the 60% rebate, that money will be sent to the national party, which will take a percentage – it’s not clear how much, although last time, it was up to 60%, depending on the riding – before sending the remaining portion back to the candidate, who usually donates it back to the riding association.

In order to run for the Greens, a candidate hopeful has to complete a (much shorter) form that covers much the same ground – although considerably less of it – as the Liberals, as far as criminal charges, bankruptcy, as well as involvement in any “ongoing legal proceeding” – whether or not it might embarrass the party if disclosed during a campaign.

Other requirements

Along with the application, potential candidates must also submit a 200-300 word biography, and a colour photo.

Still to come:

The Bloc Quebecois

Finally, in response to The Jurist, who pointed out that it would be interesting to see the contracts that the candidates have to sign in order to qualify for the Conservative nomination process: We sent an email to Ryan Sparrow asking him to send along the relevant forms - Schedules B and G, according to the guidelines. His reply: “I’m sorry, but I can’t help you”. (At least he’s sorry. Progress!)

UPDATE: An ITQ reader with federal campaign experience tells us that, once confirmed, Liberal candidates sign a financial agreement with the party that has a similar provision to that of the NDP, as far as donating a portion of any rebate from Elections Canada back to the party.